What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Sci]

Again though, this has big issues. Why are 90%+ of the Starfleet crew (and cadets) we see human?

I think this is just a conceit of TV that the crews we see are mostly-Human; there's a point where I just suspend disbelief. I can rationalize it by assuming that most of the crews we don't see are majority-alien. DIS established that Starfleet in the 2250s had around 7,000 ships; presumably it has even more in the TNG era. That's a lot of crews we haven't seen that could be majority-alien.

We can also assume that a fair number of Human-looking background characters might actually be from Human-like species such as Betazoids, Ardanans, Argelians, Elasians, Risians, etc.

Why do the Vulcans seemingly have their own fleets?

Why wouldn't they? State defense forces, answerable solely to their state's government and not to the U.S. federal government, exist today in real life. State police forces exist even though the FBI exists. Why wouldn't Federation Member States retain their own local fleets in addition to having Starfleet cover the entire UFP?

 

[Vger23]

Controversial Opinions, anyone??

 

[fireproof78]

Controversial Opinions, anyone??

I've listed so many of mine I can't even remember. I would hate to repeat myself

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Again though, this has big issues. Why are 90%+ of the Starfleet crew (and cadets) we see human? Why do the Vulcans seemingly have their own fleets?

There may not be money in the future on Earth, but there's money on it here and now. Doing aliens, at least aliens that don't look human, costs more.

 

[Tim Thomason]

"Controversial" opinion is a redundant phrase around these parts.

 

[Vger23]

"Controversial" opinion is a redundant phrase around these parts.

Not just these parts…..

 

[fireproof78]

Alright, I'll bite.

This may end up as a bit of a rant.

I don't care if Star Trek gets cancelled. I don't understand the drive to know exactly how long a series will last, when it will or will not get cancelled, how the studio feels about it, whether ratings are good, or bad or whatever. I can't muster the energy to even wonder about that stuff. I guess that makes me a poor fan or whatnot, but the BTS drama of shows is not interesting. It's not enjoyable and doesn't help a show improve in my opinion.

 

[Vger23]

Alright, I'll bite.

This may end up as a bit of a rant.

I don't care if Star Trek gets cancelled. I don't understand the drive to know exactly how long a series will last, when it will or will not get cancelled, how the studio feels about it, whether ratings are good, or bad or whatever. I can't muster the energy to even wonder about that stuff. I guess that makes me a poor fan or whatnot, but the BTS drama of shows is not interesting. It's not enjoyable and doesn't help a show improve in my opinion.

I could care less as well. TOS only went 3 and it’s far-and-away the best of all the series, and indications are that 3 was probably perfect for where the show was at.

I admit that I like following the box office performance of the films (always have, going back to when I was a kid), but all this other stuff just feels like people looking to justify their own opinions rather than genuine interest in performance. It gets tiresome.

 

[JoaquinSlowly]

‪‪I definitely understand where you guys are coming from, ‪‪a show/episode/movie’s general performance doesn’t impact my enjoyment of, or engagement with the material.

‪‪I may be a little bummed out for a bit if a show ‪‪I loved gets cancelled, and ‪‪I felt there was potential for more good stuff going unfulfilled, sometimes, but it isn’t anything that’s going to worry me or stress me out.

 

[somebuddyX]

Again though, this has big issues. Why are 90%+ of the Starfleet crew (and cadets) we see human? Why do the Vulcans seemingly have their own fleets?

Environmental conditions probably play a part. Humans have our temperature we enjoy, Vulcans like it hotter, Andorians like it colder. If there were Tholians in Starfleet, they probably have temperatures of 207 °C. If the Xindi-Aquatics were in Starfleet they probably have unique ships where they can swim around in. Maybe if enough people from Melora from DS9's planet joined Starfleet they could all just fly around the ship.
I also just go with real world considerations and limitations. I like there being just some humans and a few aliens in the cast because the real world references or analogies people want to make are easier if you don't have to invent everything. Darmok has Picard talking about Gilgamesh to Dathon and maybe it could work if you insert some made up name in place but maybe not. Or Janeway can talk about the Millenium Gate and compare it to the Great Wall of China. Tom Paris can bring up all kinds of Earth minutiae.
I also can't fault past or even present productions from just having humans or human looking aliens on other ships or starbases. It's cheaper or maybe they just didn't think of it.
I think of it also like how in Star Wars there were only humans in the Rebellion until you get to Return of the Jedi and then there were heaps of aliens running the Rebel fleet. There were no women or aliens in the Empire in the films but even in the 90s I figured there were women just out of shot somewhere. Aliens I could go either way on but in the prequels Palpy is mates with Maul and Mas Amedda, so...

 

[fireproof78]

It's cheaper

This is the main limitation. Your budgets only can go so far, science fiction is already expensive enough to produce with the sets and main character make up. Adding on more make up adds on more time and money to a production.

 

[FederationHistorian]

Star Trek Into Darkness is an easier watch when you realize that the villain isn’t Khan, but Kirk’s would be father-in-law Admiral Marcus.

That would mean that Kirk and Carol would have to be wedded to each other in a future film.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek Into Darkness is an easier watch when you realize that the villain isn’t Khan, but Kirk’s would be father-in-law Admiral Marcus.

That would mean that Kirk and Carol would have to be wedded to each other in a future film.

The only characters I ship.

 

[Sci]

Star Trek Into Darkness is an easier watch when you realize that the villain isn’t Khan, but Kirk’s would be father-in-law Admiral Marcus.

Yeah, I'm always confused by the people who say Star Trek Into Darkness is a retread of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The plots are very different; the only part that's lifted from TWOK is the death scene, which is a clear homage to TWOK. The rest of the story is very different, and yeah, Admiral Marcus is the real villain of the film.

That would mean that Kirk and Carol would have to be wedded to each other in a future film.

Wow there cowboy. Slow down. Kirk hasn't even bought her a drink yet as of Into Darkness's ending. Let's see if these two have a good first date before we start picking out wedding venues.

 

[eschaton]

Yeah, I'm always confused by the people who say Star Trek Into Darkness is a retread of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The plots are very different; the only part that's lifted from TWOK is the death scene, which is a clear homage to TWOK. The rest of the story is very different, and yeah, Admiral Marcus is the real villain of the film.

It would have been a much better film if they actually had Khan ultimately staying an ally of Kirk & Co all the way through the third act, because Spock's final showdown with Khan made it a muddled mess thematically.

 

[plynch]

Yes.
He turns into a baddie.
So there are two villains now.
Woulda been WAY better for Khan to stay "good" or at least morally ambiguous.
I've seen it once, I think. I remember Spock and Khan, fighting on top of traffic, or a tram -- is that right? I had to cover my ears the punches landing were so loud.

 

[Sci]

It would have been a much better film if they actually had Khan ultimately staying an ally of Kirk & Co all the way through the third act, because Spock's final showdown with Khan made it a muddled mess thematically.

I mean, the point of the film was that violating democratic principles in the name of national security produces blowback. The entire thing was an allegory for how things like U.S. support for the mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the USSR led to the rise of al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks; Khan starting out as a seeming ally and then turning against the Federation is in fact a key element of making that allegory work.

But I agree that the final act is not as well-executed as it could have been.

 

[plynch]

Almost sounds like a theme that needs two movies then: Movie #1, defeat the admiral, end w Khan as odd ally. #2, The Wrath of Khan, as he uprises against the Fed for some reason.

 

[1001001]

I think that whole movie was a mess.

Too long, too uneven.

One of my least favorites.

 

[fireproof78]

But I agree that the final act is not as well-executed as it could have been.

I agree, but I think that it still executes better that it is ever given credit for. And that's largely due to focusing on Khan as the big bad, rather than on Marcus who unintentionally unleashes a greater destructive force than what he was trying to prevent.